A Foreign Policy Actor in the Making

Transcription

1 Lund University STVM 17 Department of Political Science Spring Term 2011 Tutor: Rikard Bengtsson A Foreign Policy Actor in the Making Discursive Construction of the EU Self-image and Role(s) ( ) A Aysu Muftuoglu

2 Abstract Departing from the question of how the EU self-image and role conception have been constructed in , this study locates the analysis of the EU as a foreign policy (FP) actor within the constructivist framework of role theory combined with a discursive approach. Guided by the central assumption that identity and role conception can be analysed by studying language in the form of discourse, the study particularly aims to address the relationship between the EU s self-image and role conception in FP and the extent of continuity and change within the EU s official FP discourse. The analysis; of Presidency Conclusions of the European Council Meetings, two framework documents and ten speeches by key foreign policy-makers, conducted by a combination of the method of open coding and the analytical concepts borrowed from Laclau and Mouffe s discursive approach shows that significant change has taken place within the discursive terrain. Along with an emergent role conception of the EU as protector against transnational challenges after the launch of ESS (2003), two concomitant changes have taken place; unravelling of the articulation between self-image and role conception and a stronger articulation of interests. Key words: European Union, foreign policy, Common Foreign and Security Policy, role theory, discourse analysis Words: 19999

3 Table of contents 1 Introduction Research Question and Aim Clarifying the Concept: The EU Foreign Policy Setting the Context: A Common Foreign and Security Policy Delimitations Outline of the Study Research Overview The EU as "Power" in International Politics The EU as "Civilian", "Normative" and "Military" Power The Concepts: Power and Identity Critiques and Insights The Actorness of the EU Role Theory in IR Role(s) of the EU Purpose and Contribution to the Literature Theory Social Constructivism Ontology Theory of Structuration Identity and Interests Epistemology Role Theory Role Theory in IR Structurationist Approach Identitative Dimension Concepts of Role

4 3.3 The Approach to Language and Discourse The Analytical Framework Methodology Methods The Method of Open Coding Laclau and Mouffe s Approach to Discourse Analysis Material Documents Selected for Analysis Documents as Sources: Methodological Considerations Methodological Delimitations Reliability and Validity Analysis Introduction Elements of the EU Self-image The Nodal Point of European integration A Responsible EU The EU in Demand The EU as a Pole of Attraction The EU as the Prime Example of Regional Integration The EU as a Union Based on Values The EU Role Conceptions The EU as Maintaining International Peace and Security The EU as an Actor of Conflict Prevention and Crisis-management The EU as Promoter of Values The EU as Protector against Transnational Challenges Articulation: Interests and Values Articulation: Self-image and Role Conception European Integration & the EU as Promoter of Values European Integration & the EU as Protector against Transnational Challenges

5 5.5 Conclusion: Continuity and Change Conclusion Reflections Conclusions Executive summary References Primary Sources Secondary Sources

6 List of Abbreviations CFSP CPE CSDP EEAS EFP EPC ESDP ESS EU FPA EUPM IGC IR NPEU RIESS USA Common Foreign and Security Policy Civilian Power Europe Common Security and Defense Policy European External Action Service European Foreign Policy European Political Cooperation European Security and Defense Policy European Security Strategy European Union Foreign Policy Analysis European Union Police Mission Intergovernmental Conference International Relations Normative Power Europe Report on Implementation of the European Security Strategy United States of America 4

7 1 Introduction While the European Union (EU) is often portrayed as a distinctive polity; the distinctiveness is underlined considering the EU as an actor in international politics. The EU s common foreign and security policy (CFSP) is an unusual phenomenon of successive development of collective foreign policy among twenty-seven European states some of which are the oldest nation states in the world (Strömvik 2005:1-3). Due to its distinctiveness, the EU s collective foreign policy is a scholarly challenge concerning how to categorise and with which tools to analyse. The fact that the EU collective foreign policy constitutes a moving target (Strömvik 2005:19) by being a project and a process as well as a policy (Lucarelli 2006:7) contributes to the challenge. While the vast majority of contributions on analysing and understanding the EU foreign policy seems to put more emphasis on its hardware dimensions mainly including the development of the institutional structure- and on the specific policy areas regarding its relations with the rest of the world (Lucarelli 2006:1), there is also a continuous debate about the nature of the EU as an international actor (Elgström and Smith 2006:1). Increasingly, this debate has come to centre on the values and principles that characterise the EU and on the argument that there is a distinctive role for the EU in world politics deriving from its particular nature (Lucarelli 2006:2). 1.1 Research Question and Aim The aim of this study is to locate this latter debate within a theoretical framework informed by role theory combined with a particular discursive approach. The study analyses the EU as a foreign policy (FP) actor after 1999 when the Union has acquired autonomous military capabilities and central reforms concerning visibility and representation have entered into force. Embedded within a constructivist theoretical framework based on the role theory with an emphasis on identitative dimension of foreign policy; the main research question of the 5

8 study is as follows; how the EU s self-image and role conception have been constructed in the EU s official foreign policy discourse in the period ? The purpose of the study can be described as two-fold. The main purpose is to analyse the EU as a foreign policy actor during a ten year period; with a particular concern to discover how its self-image and role conceptions have evolved and changed. Understanding change is deemed important as the EU is a project and a process as well as an actor. The period after 1999 is particularly significant in that respect since the Union has entered an intensive period of constructing and communicating its foreign policy after it has acquired autonomous military capabilities and the High Representative for CFSP had been appointed. The broader purpose, on a more theoretical level, is to develop ways to study a foreign policy actor by empirically applying role theory to the official foreign policy discourse of a foreign policy actor. The study also seeks to develop identitative dimension of role theory; considering how self-image relates with role conception by the help of analytical tools borrowed from the discursive approach adopted by the study. 1.2 Clarifying the Concept: The EU Foreign Policy It is necessary to make explicit what is understood by the EU foreign policy in this study and locate it vis-à-vis the dominant expression in the literature, European foreign policy (EFP). EFP is a complex and multilayered system of foreign policy formulation and implementation. It refers broadly to three types of activities; foreign policy of the member states of the EU, external relations conducted by the Commission comprising the policies of development cooperation, trade and enlargement- and more traditional foreign diplomatic activity conducted by the Council comprising the CFSP and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)- (Carlsnaes 2004:1, Keukeleire 2008:29). This study accepts the third as its object of analysis which might appropriately be called the EU foreign policy referring to the observable foreign policy behaviour emanating from the Council framework, denoting the fields of diplomatic relations and security (Strömvik 2005:26). 6

9 1.3 Setting the Context: A Common Foreign and Security Policy The cooperation among member states regarding diplomatic relations with third countries has started with the adoption of the Luxembourg Report signifying the start of what was termed the European Political Cooperation (EPC). The EPC had acquired treaty status with the enactment of the Single European Act (1986) and; with the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty (1993), it has been institutionalised within what was previously called the second pillar of the EU, the CFSP (Keukeleire 2008:44-52). Throughout the 1990s, progress has been recorded concerning institutionalisation and operationalisation of the CFSP. During the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) from , possible means of making external action more effective and visible had been discussed. The IGC led to the Amsterdam Treaty which was signed in October Progressive steps of the Treaty such as the establishment of the Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit and the appointment of a Secretary General/High Representative for the CFSP were realised in 1999 (Keukeleire 2008:54). In December 1998, Franco-British summit took place in St Malo which marks a significant moment for the prospect of cooperation in the field of security and defence, as the British and French leaders decided on the development of the EU s autonomous military capabilities. Cologne European Council of June 1999 has duly accepted the goal to establish European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and; military capacity objectives and plans for the institutional structure were spelled out by the Helsinki European Council of December 1999 (Keukeleire 2008:56-57) which expressed the EU s determination to develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. After St Malo and Cologne and Helsinki European Council Meetings of 1999, the EU entered a phase of intense discussions on the development of autonomous institutional and military capacity for force generation and deployment (Howorth 2007:4). While the Laeken European Council of December 2001 asserted that the EU should be able to carry out the full range of 7

10 Petersberg tasks 1 by 2003 (Howorth 2007:207), the EU embarked on its first mission, European Union Police Mission (EUPM), in Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 2003 which was followed in December 2003 by its first military mission Concordia in Macedonia (Howorth 2007:210-11). The European Security Strategy was also launched in In December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. Among the most significant development concerning CFSP accomplished by the Lisbon Treaty are the abolition of the pillar system -albeit only in terms of presentation not regarding policy-making-, the creation of the function of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice President of the Commission, the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and renaming of the ESDP as the CSDP (Keukeleire 2008:62). 1.4 Delimitations Every research question leaves out other substantial questions by orienting the research endeavour towards particular issues at the expense of others. Some delimitations of this study stemming from its research orientation should be made explicit at the introductory stage. First delimitation stems from the multilevel and multipillar nature of the EU foreign policy (Keukeleire 2008:29-32). As this study sets its object of analysis as the EU foreign policy rather than the EFP, it leaves outside the interplay between member state foreign policies and the EU foreign policy. Although the pillar structure has formally been abolished in the Lisbon Treaty, it still persists in practice. Hence, it should once again be clarified, as the above definition of the EU foreign policy also makes clear, that the study s focus tends to tilt towards the Council framework given its aim to capture role conceptions of a general and strategic nature rather than contextual nature. As should be clear given the research question, this study focuses on the ideational rather than material dimension of the EU foreign policy. The material dimension can be understood as referring to tangible capabilities at the Union s disposal, the institutional development in the 1 Defined by the Western European Union (WEU) in 1992, the Petersber Tasks correspond to humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking and are incorporated to the TEU by the Amsterdam Treaty. (Howorth 2007:98, Keukeleire 2008:177). 8

11 context of CFSP and CSDP, or the outcomes of policies in specific field and towards third countries. Rather than focusing on either of these dimensions, this study centres on how the EU foreign policy is conceived by policy-makers; the subjective dimension of foreign policy. For the analysis of subjective dimension, the EU s official foreign policy discourse is accepted as the main frame of reference. Another delimitation appears then; that incompatibility between what the EU says and what it does might exist. Hence, it should be clarified that it is not the ambition of this study to explain the actual foreign policy behaviour of the EU. 1.5 Outline of the study The subsequent chapter overviews the research on the EU as an actor in international politics. Since it is a very broad field of inquiry, the overview is restricted according to the particular research question and aim of this study. Hence, the chapter looks at three particular branches of literature that focuses on the EU as power, the actorness of the EU and the role theory in IR and role(s) of the EU. The third chapter makes explicit the theoretical assumptions of this study. It starts by explaining the ontological and epistemological presumptions of social constructivism and proceeds by the particular theory of role which informs this study s position on how to understand a foreign policy actor. Lastly, the approach to language and discourse that this study adopts is clarified which is followed by the analytical framework which elaborates upon how theoretical assumptions translates to the analysis stage. In the fourth chapter, the methodology of the study is explicated along with the material, delimitations and the criteria of warranting in qualitative research. The methodology is a qualitative one as the interpretive endeavour of this study requires. The analysis of textual material is conducted by integrating the method of open coding guided by central questions and sensitising concepts, and the analytical tools borrowed from Laclau and Mouffe s approach to discourse analysis, for restructuring the material. The material is composed of Presidency Conclusions of the European Council meetings (June and December) , 9

12 two framework documents -The European Security Strategy (ESS) 2003 and The Report on the Implementation of ESS (RIESS) 2008-, nine speeches of Javier Solana, High Representative for the CFSP ( ) and one speech of Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy ( ). The methodology chapter concludes with an elaboration on delimitations and the study s quest for satisfying the criteria of reliability and validity. The following chapter is the empirical analysis, conducted within the theoretical framework and by the tools provided in previous chapters. The analysis opens with an introductory section and the remaining is structured in four main sections covering; first, the elements of the EU self-image and second, the elements of the EU role conception; which are analysed by the method of open coding. Each element is analysed in a separate section which deals primarily with any change in meaning and their articulation within the discursive terrain. While the first section opens with the nodal point of European integration, the second concludes with articulation between interests and values, both seen as defining characteristics of the discursive terrain. The third section analyses the articulation of the nodal point of European integration to the EU s role conception, both as a way of highlighting how selfimage relates to the role conception and to better understand change within the discursive terrain. The last section in the chapter summarises the findings with a particular attention to continuity and change in the EU s official foreign policy discourse in The last chapter concludes by reflecting upon the theories and methods used for the analysis in the study and upon the broader implications of the research findings. 10

13 2 Research Overview The analysis of European foreign policy constitutes a vast body of research. As clarified in the introductory section, this study focuses on the EU foreign policy from the perspective of what kind of an international actor the EU represents in the world. Manners and Whitman identifies three distinct approaches in the research dealing with the same question. First, there are studies departing from the premise that the EU is sui generis and that its analysis requires the construction of new conceptual categorizations. Second is the body of research that seeks to explain the international significance of the EU using the theoretical tools of the discipline of IR, centering on the concept of actorness (Manners and Whitman 1998:232-36) 2. These two branches of research will be dealt with in the first two sections of this chapter and the third section will briefly look at role theory in international relations (IR) and the concept of role in the research concerning the EU as a global actor. 2.1 The EU as Power in International Politics After Duchene s first formulation of the concept of civilian power in , the discussion concerning the EU foreign policy has developed centering on the notion of the EU as a particular type power. Conceptual clarification concerning power and its articulation in the literature will follow. However, it is warranted to clarify at this stage that albeit its preoccupation with power, the literature is indeed addressing a topical subject; what distinctive role is there for the EU in the world (Orbie 2006:123) and how conceptualise the EU as an international actor. 2 The third is the research on the international role of the EU focusing upon the content of specific policies conducted by the EU which will not be covered in this overview. 3 Duchêne, F. (1972) Europe s Role in World Peace, in R. Mayne (ed.) Europe Tomorrow: Sixteen Europeans Look Ahead. London: Fontana. 11

14 2.1.1 The EU as Civilian, Military and Normative power The first contribution here is that of Duchene. Duchene s (1972) conception of civilian power Europe (CPE) revolves around three principal hypotheses. Firstly, it refers to the transformation of interstate relations within Europe from war and conflict towards civilised politics. Secondly, it focuses on the possibility of an actor being a power whilst not possessing military instruments, which is the particular argument that has received the widest attention. And thirdly, Duchene considers the role a civilian power could aspire to play in a world characterised by the declining role of force and the growing importance of economic interdependence (quoted in Keukeleire 2008:11). Despite the negative response by Bull (1982) who considered the concept of civilian power to be a contradiction in terms and significantly questioned the EU as an international actor by stating that Europe is not an actor in international affairs, and does not seem likely to become one (151), the notion of the EU as a particular type of power continued to shape the subsequent contributions. 4 Hence, the CPE is basically understood to be built upon two propositions; one about the means of power and the other about the objectives of European foreign policy (Orbie 2006:125, Smith 2005:65). Considering means; the fact that European Union has no military capabilities, at least before 1990s and its use of its economic and political leverage to exert influence led to its designation as a civilian power (Orbie 2006). Considering civilian objectives; while considerable uncertainty exits, these are thought to be the pacification of interstate relations along the same lines as in Europe and/or the promotion of civilian values. With the development of the EU s autonomous military capabilities, a new debate has developed about the prospect of the civilian power status of the EU. The general argumentative line here is that the Union continues to be a civilian power as long as its civilian foreign policy objectives remain intact; and that the Union can indeed become a more effective civilian actor with military capabilities. 4 The concept of civilian power was further developed by Maull (1990) without reference to the EU; to suggest a broader change in dynamics of international relations, shifting from the military-political sphere to economic and social developments. 12

15 Stavridis (2001) asserts that thanks to the militarising of the Union, the latter might at long last be able to act as a real civilian power in the world, that is to say as a force for the external promotion of democratic principles (43) and points to the need to move from a civilian power Europe "by default" to one "by design" (44). Maull also shares the same opinion that the EU stays as a civilian force due to the fact that, after having civilised its own political realms, the EU still has as its objective of foreign policy to transform interstate relations along the same lines (2005:780). It is only Smith who departs from this argumentative line with the note of caution that the literature lacks good, clear definition of what civilian ends are and that it is not possible to state uncritically that the EU is actually pursuing civilian ends and therefore is a civilian power (2005:74). Meanwhile, the literature entered a new phase with the introduction to the debate the concept of normative power by Manners (2002). He asserted that conceptions of the EU as either a civilian power or a military power, both located in discussions of capabilities or means, need to be augmented with a focus on normative power of an ideational nature (2002:240). Accordingly, he reframed the centre of the debate as normative power Europe (NPEU) referring to the ability to shape conceptions of normal in international relations (ibid.). Ability to define what is considered normal in international relations endorses an understanding power over opinion and moves the debate beyond state-like features (240). Since the entry of NPEU to the conceptual landscape of the literature, the debate has started to centre on the concept Critiques and Insights Manner s contribution ignited a rich academic debate which led to attempts to further define and understand specifically NPEU assertion, but more broadly the question of how to study and understand the EU as an international actor. An initial criticism concerns whether NPEU was a prescriptive or descriptive category. Here the attention is called to the strategic calculations and material interests that can trump the normative agenda of the EU when material interests and normative ideals clash (Merlingen 13

16 2007:437, Diez 2005:624); or that norm projection goals might not be consistent both in terms of not discriminating between different external actor or regions (Diez 2005:624). NPEU is also questioned by calling attention to the EU s own record of norm compliance and to the incoherence that might exist between its ambitions and achievements (Nicolaïdis and Howse 2002:788). On a more substantial level, however, the criticism is directed against the fact that the concepts of CPE and NPEU have not been problematised or clearly defined (Pace 2007, Smith 2005, Diez 2005, Sjursen 2002). More relevant, for the purposes of this study, are the contributions that point to the constructed nature of CPE and NPEU and their link with the official EU rhetoric. This is reflected in the criticism against the literature of merely confirming the EU rhetoric (Orbie 2006:126) or at the very least; of being very similar to that used by EU officials when describing the EU's international role (Sjursen 2006:170). More significant, however, is the argument that CPE and NPEU can be studied as discursive constructs. Larsen (2002:289) asserts that while conceptualization of the EU as a civilian power was based on an essentialist understanding which centres on certain features of the EU, it is possible to approach it departing from the question of how the dominant discourse constructs the EU. While Nicolaidis and Howse (2002) call for reflexivity on the notion of Europe as a more advanced model which has pervaded not only European discourse but often that of those who seek to emulate it, Diez also emphasises the need for self-reflexivity in NPEU debate and calls for a systematic discourse analysis of the construction of the EU as a normative power (2005:615). Pace (2007: ), on the other hand, aims at exploring the elements of the construction of the EU as a normative power in terms of its content and process. The contributions also discuss the consequences of the construction of the EU as a normative power; both in terms of its potential to secure a role for the EU globally (Pace 2005:1059) and of power that lies in the representation of the EU as a normative power; by establishing a particular identity for the EU through turning third parties into others and representing the EU as a positive force in world politics (Diez 2005:614). 14

17 2.1.3 The Concepts: Power and Identity It is often repeated in the literature that central concepts remain understudied through the discussions. The conceptual ambiguity is made all the worse by the essentially contested nature of the concepts which occupy a central place throughout the debates such as power and identity. Regarding the conceptualisation the EU as power, the concept of power is often used by reference to which means are at the EU s disposal and, more particularly, to how the EU uses its means to achieve its ends. Within the framework of Hill s four broad categories of ways to exercise power and influence (Hill 2003:137, quoted in Smith 2005:67), a civilian power sways another actor s decisions, using persuasion -the carrot- and deference -latent influencerather than compelling another actor to do something by using force -the stick- or deterrence - -the threat of the use of force-. The concept of normative power, on the other hand, goes beyond denoting how the EU uses its means to achieve its ends; and denotes its ability to construct or shape the environment in which other actors also operate by its ability to define and interpret that realm according to its own frames of reference. In this framework, power appears as productive power; working through diffuse social relations of constitution rather than direct interactions with specific actors (Barnett and Duvall 2005:9-22, quoted in Bengtsson 2010:33) A major deficit in the literature is the conceptual fluidity concerning identity of the EU. Albeit there exists an implicit assumption that identity impacts upon foreign policy formulation on the EU level and that it is a major source of distinctiveness of the EU as a foreign policy actor; there is almost no attempt to clarify how to define the concept of identity and to understand the nature of European identity if there exists one-. Moreover, the concept of identity is stretched to such an extent that it is used interchangeably with the EU s functions, roles and its overall behaviour as a foreign policy actor (Sedelmeier 2004:125). As well as embodying an elusive meaning of identity, overall literature is also plagued with a limited conceptual understanding of the implications of identity for EFP (Sedelmeier 2004:123). 15

18 2.2 Actorness of the EU Apart from the studies departing from the premise that the EU is sui generis and deal with the construction of new conceptual categorizations to explain its international role, the international significance of the EU has also been analysed using the theoretical tools of the discipline of IR. A social constructivist theoretical framework has informed this analysis. Sjostedt 5 (1977) introduced; Allen and Smith (1990), Hill (1993), Bretherton and Vogler (1999, 2006) and Larsen (2002) revisited how to conceptualise the EU as an international actor within the theoretical framework of IR. Allen and Smith (1990) developed the notion of presence endorsing two central assertions of a constructivist approach to understanding an international actor. First is the recognition that a set of expectations shaped by policy makers and institutions can enter into the realm of political reality and play a consequential role in unfolding events (21). This assertion refers to an acknowledgement that others perceptions and expectations are constitutive of the character of an actor. They define presence by a combination of factors; credentials and legitimacy, the capacity to act and mobilize resources and the place it occupies in the perceptions and expectations of policy makers (ibid.) Hence, presence can be associated with tangible attributes, but it can also be expressed in essentially intangible ways which are none the less powerful (ibid). Accordingly, their second central argument is that the establishment of presence in a given domain is not the prerogative solely of actors tangible attributes centred on people and institutions, but can be a property of ideas, notions, expectations and imaginations (1990:22). Hill (1993) draws on this understanding of presence in his often cited notion of capabilityexpectations gap. While he uses the term actornes, the concept is identical to presence and it provides a theoretical perspective which can incorporate both the internal dynamics of 5 Sjostedt s (1977) contribution that, an international actor must be delimited, autonomous, and possesses certain structural prerequisites for action on the international level (quoted in Hill 1993:309), can be said to be focused on prerequisites for being an actor while not incorporating a constructivist approach which will become more clear in future contributions. 16

19 institutional development and the changing nature of the international environment in which it has to operate (1993:309). Accordingly, capability-expectations gap denotes a gap between tasks which the Union is expected to perform and its actual capabilities, in terms of resources and the instruments at its disposal (315). Bretherton and Vogler (2006:24-35) conceptualise presence as constructed through the interplay of internal factors of capability and perceptions and expectations of outsiders in a structure of opportunity. Internal factors policy instruments and understandings about the ability to utilise these instruments- determine capability of an actor in an external environment of opportunity composed of intersubjective understandings as well as material conditions- signifying the structural context enabling or constraining action. Drawing on this perspective, Larsen posits that a constructivist approach to international actorness can be said to focus on two things; whether and how a group of states, institutional actors or others construct themselves as an international actor; and whether and how the surrounding world constructs this group as an actor (2002:287). Larsen replaces the internal capability dimension, which has been so far framed in terms of material capabilities, with intangible attributes centering on the actor s own conceptualisation of the meaning of its action. 2.3 Role theory in IR Role theory, originating in the discipline of sociology, has been introduced into the field of foreign policy analysis (FPA) by a seminal article published by Holsti. In this article Holsti (1970) set out to investigate decision-makers perception of their own nation based on an extensive cross-national study (12). The aim here is not to provide an elaborate overview as to how role theory has been applied in the literature as there exist considerable difference among scholars with regard to the understanding of sources and factors shaping roles, ranging from an objectivist account of actors material or cognitive traits as determining factors to a constructivist understanding that explores language and social interaction (Harnisch 2011:7). The broader theoretical framework within which role theory is placed will be explicated in the 17

20 theory chapter. The focus here will rather be on how the concept of role has been used in the literature dealing with the EU as an actor in IR Role(s) of the EU Throughout the literature dealing with the EU foreign policy, it is not uncommon to find the concept of role. However, the concept is rarely connected to role theory as deployed in IR literature and there is seldom a specification of what roles the EU actually engages in (Elgström and Smith 2006:4-5). Rather the concept of role is often treated as interchangeable with influence, identity or actorness and is sometimes used as an umbrella concept for general patterns of EU foreign policy behaviour (ibid.). Hill (1990) and Bretherton and Vogler (1999, 2006) seem to utilise role concept in a more systematic way. Hill looks at various functions the EU performs or might need to perform in the international system. He distinguishes four functions which the EC has performed up to the present in the international system, and the six which it might perform in the future based largely on the expectations by the influential insiders and outsiders (1990:310-15). Bretherton and Vogler (2006:55-59) delineate three broad and complementary roles for the Union based on an inclusive conceptualisation of its identity; as a model, as a promoter of its (proclaimed) internal values, as a counterweight to the USA. If the EU s identity is formulated in exclusive terms, however, the EU s role appears as that of a protector. It is also possible to come across instances in the literature where either civilian, normative or military power conceptions of the EU are formulated as the external role(s) of the Union (Manners and Whitman 2003:388). However, none of these examples of usage of role concept is placed within the constructivist framework of role theory, a central tenet of which is to investigate role conceptions of an actor departing from decision-makers own perception of that actor s function and responsibilities on the world stage. 6 6 One exception in this regard seems to be the research by Aggestam (2004) whereby she applied role theory to the analysis of foreign policies of three EU member states, France, Britain and Germany. Placed within a theoretical framework which aims to develop the concept of role in regard to the identitative dimension of foreign policy (13), Aggestam investigates conceptions of identity and role officially communicated through key foreign policy speeches with a general and strategic nature by policy-makers in three countries (23). 18

21 2.4 Purpose and Contribution to the Literature Regarding the EU as power literature, three observations can be made. First; there is a considerable lack of conceptual clarification concerning central concepts such as power and identity. The fact that identity- FP relationship has not been examined at all is a central deficit due to the implicit reference to the EU s identity impacting on its external action. Second, and in relation with the first point, the research proceeds almost exclusively on its own terms without borrowing from existing theories of FPA or IR. And thirdly; discourse does not appear as a frame of reference and the constructed nature of CPE/NPEU is not recognised or analysed albeit a few exceptions-. As to the study of actorness of the EU; while the embeddedness of this approach within constructivist IR theory is a considerable advantage, it does not provide analytical tools to study an international actor. This study aims at analysing the EU s foreign policy within the theoretical framework of role theory combined with a discursive approach. It is assumed that locating the study of the EU as international actor within the framework of an existing theory has considerable advantage for systematic analysis. Furthermore, role theory provides a framework in which identity- FP relationship can be better studied. The study is also sensitive concerning discourse and its role for constructing the EU as an international actor. All in all, in its simplest form, this study can be accepted as a contribution to the literature on the role(s) of the EU, as a systematic application of role concept combined with a discursive approach centering on change and the identitative dimension roles. 19

22 3 Theory The aim of this chapter is to make explicit and clarify the assumptions and concepts that informs this study s theoretical framework. The chapter opens with meta-theoretical standpoint of social constructivism and continues with role theory which is the general theoretical framework of this study. Before concluding with the analytical framework, the study s approach to discourse will also be highlighted. 3.1 Social Constructivism It should be noted that constructivism is not a theory nor is it a single approach. Indeed, it might be more accurately portrayed as a meta-theoretical standpoint in political analysis (Hay 2002, quoted in White 2004:21) and/or an analytical framework (Reus-Smith 2001:222). It should also be clarified that the constructivist spectrum is broad and complex (Bengtsson 2010:9) and the approach chosen here draws on reflectivist assumptions Ontology Constructivism is first and foremost a statement about the nature of the world we observe. Hence, it is an ontological statement. Constructivism claims that reality is socially constructed by cognitive structures that give meaning to the material world (Adler 1997:319). Accordingly the environment in which agents take action is social as well as material (Checkel 1998:325). Hence it is possible to speak about the ontological reality of intersubjective knowledge and a material world that depends on normative and epistemic interpretations of itself (Adler 1997:322). Social constructivism questions materialist philosophies of science which posit that behaviour is affected by outside physical forces by directing attention to how these forces are given 20

23 meaning by the social context through which they are interpreted (Checkel 1998:326). Material structures only acquire meaning for human action through the structure of shared meaning in which they are embedded (Reus-Smith 2001:216-17). Accordingly, normative and ideational structures are as just important as material structures in shaping behaviour of social and political actors (ibid.) Theory of Structuration It follows from these key assumptions that constructivists take up a distinctive structurationist position concerning agency-structure relationship. Constructivist approach claims that neither structural determinism nor voluntarism are viable and seeks to reconcile a focus on structures with sensitivity to the intentionality, reflexivity and agency of actors (Giddens 1984, quoted in White 2004:22). Constructivists emphasize a process of interaction between agents and structures; the ontology is one of mutual constitution, where neither unit of analysis -agents or structures- is reduced to the other and made ontologically primitive (Checkel 1998:326). Accordingly, agency and structure are mutually constitutive and only theoretically separable (White 2004:22). The mutually constitutive relationship between structure and agency denotes that; while agents are bound by structures which constitute their identities and interests, the structures are socially constructed by the individual agents in the first place and are open to change through intentional action (Checkel 1998:325). Agents both constitute and inhibit the structure within which they exist (Bretherton and Vogler 2006:21). Accordingly, agents can be conceived as rule-makers as well as rule-takers and structures do not determine behaviour but provide action settings or patterns of opportunity and constraint within which agency is displayed (ibid.) Identity and Interests The central ontological assumption of social constructivism based on a process of interaction between agents and structures also posits that agents in IR; international actors- are constituted throughout their existence in the social realm. Hence, social constructivist theory in IR claims that normative and ideational structures shape social identities of agents which, 21

24 in turn, shape their interests and consequently actions (Reus-Smith 2001:217). This depiction of social world and individual agency posits an alternative to rationalist assumption that agents interests are fixed and exogenously given and mainly derived from material positions-. Constructivism holds that society is a social rather than strategic realm whereby actors are social agents rather than atomistic egoists and interest formation is endogenous to social interaction and social world in which agents are embedded (Reus-Smith 2001:219). This opens up what for most theorists is the black box of interest and identity formation; as state interests emerge from and are endogenous to interaction within intersubjective social structures (Checkel 1998:326) Epistemology The research conducted within a constructivist theoretical framework changes the research agenda by asking different sorts of question. Different from rationalists embracing methodological individualism and an agent-centred view- who are concerned with why particular decisions are made and actions taken and with explaining choices and behaviours, constructivists are concerned with how such decisions are possible and what are their bases in subjective and/or intersubjective domains composed of dominant belief systems, conceptions of identity, and perceptions (White 2004:23). Rather than why questions, constructivism embraces what or how possible questions (Lupovici 2009:200), in a direction to understanding rather than explaining behaviour. Central notion here is that action should be understood from within, in terms of subjective meaning given to that action. (Hollis and Smith 1991:72) Accordingly, constructivist epistemology is hermeneutic or interpretivist in its research orientation. Constructivism s embrace of constitutive rather than causal theorising also links with its interpretation the nature of scientific knowledge. The absence of why questions generally reflect an assumption that in the social sciences, it is not possible to arrive at generalisations or near-law statements and a rejection of the possibility and desirability of formulating covering laws (Lupovici 2009:210). This is due to the inherently variable nature of constitutive forces they emphasise such as ideas, norms and culture and the elements of human agency they stress, such as identity and to the recognition that a universal, trans- 22

25 historical, disembedded, culturally autonomous idea or identity cannot exist (Reus-Smith 2001:222). 3.2 Role Theory It is important to underline beforehand that role theory is more a research framework rather than a powerful theory which provides coherent answers as to why, when and how certain role phenomena occur (Aggestam 2004:13). Role theory originated in the discipline of sociology, mainly as a tool to discover how human action is conditioned by her social environment by the role she adopts. Moreover, role as a cognitive construct framing the concepts of self in the social world provides guidance and predisposes an actor towards one purposive behaviour rather than another (ibid.) Role Theory in IR Holsti (1970) introduced the sociological concept of role into FPA by calling attention to the utility of a sociological understanding of role for understanding an actor s characteristic pattern of behaviour. He (1970) set out to investigate decision-makers own perception of their own nation, thereby focusing on the subjective dimension of foreign policy (Aggestam 2004:12). Holsti 7 argued that a state s foreign policy was influenced by its national role conception which could help explain the general direction of its action as an international actor (Holsti 1970:40). National role conception serves as a cognitive map enabling policy-makers to organise perceptions into meaningful guide for behaviour (Aggestam 2004:12). Hence by role analysis, an actor in international system can be analysed inductively in terms of subjective meaning of its external action. 7 Although Holsti s work has recognised interaction between agency and structure and adopted a position that might be classified as constructivist (Breuning 2011:18), substantial differences can be found between epistemological foundations of empirical applications of role theory (Harnisch 2011:7). However, this study places role theory within a social constructivist ontology and epistemology as the remaining sections will further clarify. 23

26 Role conception also reflects the state as a situated actor; guided both by reason and rules in foreign policy (Aggestam 2004:36-8). Hence, it is embedded within constructivist ontology, encompassing how individual agents and social structures are dynamically interrelated (Aggestam 2006:12). Thus, a major advantage of the theory is that it can reflect the complex and dynamic interplay between actor s own role conception and structurally guided role expectations of others (Elgström and Smith 2006:5) Structurationist Approach Accordingly, role theory shares the ontological position of the theory of structuration incorporating both the intentional and structural nature of behaviour. To make structuration theory applicable to empirical analysis, role analysis incorporates three perspectives; institutional, interactional and intentional (Aggestam 2006:14). The predominant approach to role analysis is the institutional perspective which focuses on how and to what extent institutions 8 determine roles by providing a set of norms and expectations (Aggestam 2006:15). Institutions provide the intersubjective domain in which role formulation and role performance take place. Interactional perspective incorporates into analysis how roles are learned and socialised in a process of negotiation. (Aggestam 2004:60) This perspective brings out agency and its capacity for defining its own roles, and also how these subjective accounts of roles have been adapted to the intersubjective norms and expectations (ibid.). Intentional perspective calls attention to how actors themselves are involved in defining roles and attributing meaning to their actions (Aggestam 2006:17). Hence, the analytical focus is on the subjective domain and on agency. However this view of agency does not mean that role conception can be formulated without any regard to the interactional and institutional realms. 8 Institution is understood broadly here as, "social practices consisting of easily recognised roles coupled with clusters of rule of conventions governing relations among the occupants of these roles" e.g. the states system (Young 1989:33, Aggestam 58). 24

27 Instead, purposive roles are the result of an interaction between intersubjective and subjective domains (Aggestam 2006:18) Identitative Dimension According to Holsti, a role conception is largely a product of a nation s socialisation process and the influence of its history, culture and societal characteristics ( :38-39, quoted in Aggestam 2006:21). Despite Holsti s indication of the importance of the cultural sources of roles, few studies have explicitly linked the role concept with identity in foreign policy (Aggestam 2006:21) While it is recognised in the literature that FP rests on a shared sense of identity, scant attention has been given how collective identities can provide a system of orientation for self-definition and political action (Aggestam 2004:39). While the concept of national identity itself is compound with definitional problems, supranational identity is a greater academic challenge. A certain level of conceptual clarification seems warranted here. In the first place, it should be specified that in this study, identity is accepted as political identity rather than cultural identity. While cultural identity is accepted as pre-given resting on cultural similarity, a position regarded as essentialist; political identity can more appropriately be seen as a constructed phenomenon that does not necessitate common cultural roots. (Lucarelli 2006:11-12). From such a perspective which posits the significance of processes of self-identification, foreign policy is particularly important as the foreign designates a boundary between inside and outside (Jorgensen 2004:32) Another important clarification concerns the relationship between identity and roles in FP. As asserted above, this issue can be accepted as a blind spot of role theory and indeed the field of IR in general. The general tendency is to recognise identity as offering or circumscribing roles available to an actor (Bretherton and Vogler 2006:40) and supplying these roles with meaning (Nabers 2011:82); while the relationship is conceived to be important but indirect (Bretherton and Vogler 2006:55). However, the relationship between identity and role is better characterised as co-constitution or reciprocity since actors, by formulating plans and 9 Walker, Stephen G (1987) Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, Duke University Press, Duke. 25